# The beginning of the end of Castro?



## BeagleOne (Dec 23, 2005)

Ailing Castro gives power to brother

AP - 2 minutes ago

Fidel Castro temporarily relinquished his presidential powers to his brother Monday night and told Cubans he will undergo surgery.

The Cuban leader said in a letter read live on television by his secretary that he had suffered gastrointestinal bleeding, apparently due to stress from recent public appearances in Argentina and Cuba.

Because of that illness, Castro said he was temporarily relinquishing the presidency to his brother and successor Raul, the defense minister, according to the statement read by Carlos Valenciaga.


----------



## j6ppc (Jun 5, 2006)

(replying here as well)
SOP when the leader of a country goes under general anaesthesia (s)he hands off to next in line.

Just a precautionary measure.


Bests (sorry)


JS


----------



## BeagleOne (Dec 23, 2005)

Oh, I know that. But people had passed while under the knife... and there is that Bush plan for taking over the island....


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

BeagleOne said:


> Oh, I know that. But people had passed while under the knife... and there is that Bush plan for taking over the island....


For the record, there are continguency plans for invading every country in the world. They have been drafted by the Pentagon over the period of many adminsitrations. The difference is that the Cuban invasion plan has been thumbed through a few more times than the French one has been.

ATL


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

If there is ever a subject that sets me off, this is it. Anything having to do with Communism and its effect on Cuba, bells go off.

If there is a hell, Fidel's spot there has been burning and waiting for him to arrive for at least 47 years now.

Whether he is dead or not, it is only a matter of time before that SOB is where he belongs, rotting in hell.

I would like to somehow believe that Fidel has been a figure for many years, as Stalin, as Franco, that although not wanted, they have feared him and therefore put up with him (those that haven't been able to find a raft). I don't think the same will be true for his "fudge packing" (reputed) brother. That SOB is even more radical than Fidel. He is the one that went off to study Marxism.

In 47 years, I can't think of one good thing Fidel can be given credit for other than to have ousted Batista. Short of that, the man has not done a damn thing for Cuba other than to significantly set it back in time and oppress and murder its people. If anyone can think of one good thing he has done, I can counter with 500 things he has done to screw my homeland and my people. I think it can be all summarized by the fact that his mother died in exile in the United States. His daughter lives in exile. What can be said about a man has no regard for his own mother that gave birth to him? So..... if he is dead, GREAT! If he is still alive, won't be long now before he is dead.


----------



## pistol (Mar 23, 2006)

Blueface said:


> If there is ever a subject that sets me off, this is it. Anything having to do with Communism and its effect on Cuba, bells go off.
> 
> If there is a hell, Fidel's spot there has been burning and waiting for him to arrive for at least 47 years now.
> 
> ...


great post, I think people have forgotten what a world class a-hole this guy really was/is


----------



## Andyman (Jun 8, 2004)

If Fidel passes on It sounds like Bush has a plan in place to not let Raul take over.. Should be interesting..


----------



## ss396 (Sep 24, 2005)

thank you blueface for summing up Castro. he goes down in history as a very bad apple. i hope that his passing will bring change and improvement to the island and great people of Cuba. i have friends that send their families money monthly so they can squeak by in life, it is a shame.


----------



## mosesbotbol (Sep 21, 2005)

Andyman said:


> If Fidel passes on It sounds like Bush has a plan in place to not let Raul take over.. Should be interesting..


Do you think we'll try to invade Cuba again after Castro's death?


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

mosesbotbol said:


> Do you think we'll try to invade Cuba again after Castro's death?


OK,
Lets see,
Iraq, North Korea, Iran......
All the crap we are getting over invading a country that indications were it had potential weapons of mass destruction......
Invade Cuba because of Raul?
A country that poses no threat to the US at this time?
If we are considered barbaric for going into Iraq, what will the Liberals say about this one?
Only the Cubans in exile on SW 8th St. would dare to believe that possibility.
At 75, Raul's fate is sealed and his days are numbered also.
Before Raul, I would take Chavez out and spare that country the same fate as Cuba.


----------



## pedrolf (Oct 25, 2005)

Politics isnt my forte and if its one thing I learned from my father is to never talk about politics and religion. They are much too controversial a subject. I must apologize firsthand for posting my opinion, but I think some posters on this specific thread are way out of order for posting such strong remarks. If a person just so happens to be communist or a satanist even, we must respect their points of view and/or beliefs and convictions. I wouldnt for instance ask all you people what is it you think about president Bush, because we might get caught up in a very controversial matter. I think please, some posters should save some remarks and comments that could be categorized as out of order; and save personal opinion. Just my :2 
I hope this isnt offensive or insulting to none.
Pedrolf


----------



## Zenistar (Jun 19, 2006)

ATLHARP said:


> For the record, there are continguency plans for invading every country in the world. They have been drafted by the Pentagon over the period of many adminsitrations. The difference is that the Cuban invasion plan has been thumbed through a few more times than the French one has been.
> 
> ATL


Perhaps thats because the French generally greet invaders with open arms and simply step aside while their country is taken over :hn

As a side note, try typing 'french military victories' into Google and hit the Im feeling lucky button.

*Apologies to anyone French, I am not Anti-French, just like using them as the butt of jokes, just as the French I know call me 'Roast Beef'.*


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

Zenistar said:


> Perhaps thats because the French generally greet invaders with open arms and simply step aside while their country is taken over :hn
> 
> As a side note, try typing 'french military victories' into Google and hit the Im feeling lucky button.
> 
> *Apologies to anyone French, I am not Anti-French, just like using them as the butt of jokes, just as the French I know call me 'Roast Beef'.*


:tpd: :r :r :r

Nothing like bashing the French!!!


----------



## Andyman (Jun 8, 2004)

mosesbotbol said:


> Do you think we'll try to invade Cuba again after Castro's death?


Appearantly his plan is to give the Cuban people a pep talk on Democracy and encourage them to take matters into their own hands..


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

pedrolf said:


> Politics isnt my forte and if its one thing I learned from my father is to never talk about politics and religion. They are much too controversial a subject. I must apologize firsthand for posting my opinion, but I think some posters on this specific thread are way out of order for posting such strong remarks. If a person just so happens to be communist or a satanist even, we must respect their points of view and/or beliefs and convictions. I wouldnt for instance ask all you people what is it you think about president Bush, because we might get caught up in a very controversial matter. I think please, some posters should save some remarks and comments that could be categorized as out of order; and save personal opinion. Just my :2
> I hope this isnt offensive or insulting to none.
> Pedrolf


Well,

Communism and Satanism are two different things. I will say that I do not respect either of them and their views because simply one seeks to denigrate the inherent value of human beings (Satanism through the denial of humanity's *obligation* to agape love by which human worth is attributed. Communism's denial of people's *intrinsic* right to own and have dominion over their private property) and the other seeks to deny people their inalienable right to private property (Any government which denies people their private property ultimately does not respect it's citzens in *any capacity*.)

I do not respect views which deny people their basic fundamental rights and human worth. Communism and Satanism meet the criteria for both of these points and essentially my respect as well as my intent to take them as valuable additions to politics or religion is sharply lacking in any type of sincere form.

ATL


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

ATLHARP said:


> Well,
> 
> Communism and Satanism are two different things. I will say that I do not respect either of them and their views because simply one seeks to denigrate the inherent value of human beings (Satanism through the denial of humanity's *obligation* to agape love by which human worth is attributed. Communism's denial of people's *intrinsic* right to own and have dominion over their private property) and the other seeks to deny people their inalienable right to private property (Any government which denies people their private property ultimately does not respect it's citzens in *any capacity*.)
> 
> ...


Darn it Andrew!!!
Got that message again:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ATLHARP again.
Very well said.

Can somebody please help out brother Andrew?

Hey,
Just realized, I can post here.
Look out!
Actually, took my blood pressure pills.
Saw my doc.
Family life straightening out.
No BOTLs pissed at me.
Life is good.


----------



## SDmate (Apr 24, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Darn it Andrew!!!
> Got that message again:
> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ATLHARP again.
> Very well said.
> ...


Got him for ya mate!


----------



## NCRadioMan (Feb 28, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Got that message again:
> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ATLHARP again.
> Very well said.
> 
> Can somebody please help out brother Andrew?


:tpd: :c

Damn good post, Andrew.

:ms NCRM


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

With all due respect Pedrolf wasnt trying to say that communism and satanism are the same thing. quite the opposite he was using them as two very different examples as to how people can be different and hold different views but how we should still respect them. IMHO he was makin an incredibly valuable point that is often forgotten about-how, if you are to truly call yourself a democrat, you must allow people their view and their right to express said view whatever that view is.
Im not trying to start a flame war, but i think you should be careful when you say things like *"I do not respect views which deny people their basic fundamental rights and human worth. Communism and Satanism meet the criteria for both of these"* ATL as this is NOT the case. It is NOT fact, it is a normative statement, nothing more than your own personal opinion. The right to own property is not a basic fundamental human right-if you asked a socialist they would say it isnt, if you ask a capitalist they would say it is, and there is far too much disagreement over the subject for it to be taken as fact. :2


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Baric said:


> Im not trying to start a flame war, but i think you should be careful when you say things like *"I do not respect views which deny people their basic fundamental rights and human worth. Communism and Satanism meet the criteria for both of these"* ATL as this is NOT the case. It is NOT fact, it is a normative statement, nothing more than your own personal opinion.


I hope we can have an educational discussion.
If not, I am out after this post as this is not intended as a lure but rather a response to a post.

Baric, You and I have had some great discussions on this subject via PM and have both shared views with great dialogue so I am not trying to attack you in any way. I wouldn't want to get a piss match so my statements are purely to help you and others see why we feel the way we feel and perhaps we can learn better why anyone would feel so stronly about being a leftist or supporter of a form of government that is truly destructive, at least as it relates to Cuba as I wouldn't have any experience as it relates elsewhere. We come to CS to learn so lets give that a shot.

You state it is not fact but rather nothing more than his own personal opinion.
I am just curious because it always fascinates me how some can believe in a system they never lived.
If not Andrew's opinions and not mine, would you take the following opinions:
Fidel's mother who left Cuba in the sixties and died in exile, publicly voicing her shame for her son?
Fidel's sister who has lived in Miami since the sixties in exile also?
Fidel's daughter and grandaughter who also fled the country and live in the US presently, regularly denouncing Fidel?
Fidel's top general in charge of all his armed forces that defected 3 years ago to the US and has spent the last three days on Satellite TV reaching out to his commrades in Cuba to not take aim at the people should they rebel?
Fidel's right hand guy after Guevara, Huber Matos, who was imprisoned for over 20 years right after the revolution took over and now lives in Miami?
The very many Cubans who swim, raft or do whatever they can to come over here daily and many that die along the way?
The fact that so many leave daily, escaping from the country as they can't leave legally but you never see anyone taking a boat or a raft back to return to live in Cuba?
The fact that the minute a Cuban escapes and gets here they tell you all those demonstrations you see supporting Castro are government mandated and they get paid for going and harmed if they don't?
The fact that I still remain open in my offer to pay for a one way ticket to Cuba and a year's worth of cigars to whoever wants to go live there and I have yet to have a taker?

The aforementioned is factual. None of it made up. Why wouldn't that be believable to some?


----------



## Andyman (Jun 8, 2004)

Thank you. I started to reply and decided I better not. You worded that very well..



ATLHARP said:


> Well,
> 
> Communism and Satanism are two different things. I will say that I do not respect either of them and their views because simply one seeks to denigrate the inherent value of human beings (Satanism through the denial of humanity's *obligation* to agape love by which human worth is attributed. Communism's denial of people's *intrinsic* right to own and have dominion over their private property) and the other seeks to deny people their inalienable right to private property (Any government which denies people their private property ultimately does not respect it's citzens in *any capacity*.)
> 
> ...


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

Baric said:


> With all due respect Pedrolf wasnt trying to say that communism and satanism are the same thing. quite the opposite he was using them as two very different examples as to how people can be different and hold different views but how we should still respect them. IMHO he was makin an incredibly valuable point that is often forgotten about-how, if you are to truly call yourself a democrat, you must allow people their view and their right to express said view whatever that view is.
> Im not trying to start a flame war, but i think you should be careful when you say things like *"I do not respect views which deny people their basic fundamental rights and human worth. Communism and Satanism meet the criteria for both of these"* ATL as this is NOT the case. It is NOT fact, it is a normative statement, nothing more than your own personal opinion. The right to own property is not a basic fundamental human right-if you asked a socialist they would say it isnt, if you ask a capitalist they would say it is, and there is far too much disagreement over the subject for it to be taken as fact. :2


Respecting opinions and respecting people are two different things. My denial of those opinions and lack of respect for them particularly concerning human worth and inalienable rights affirms my value of them (Those I disagree with). Their denial of them (ideas affirming of human worth and rights) don't only denigrate their own opinions, but also their (Intrinsic) self-worth. Now if you tie that opinions determine human worth then that puts you in a quandry.

Property ownership is key component of human rights, even Marx in denying this affirms it when he addresses the needs of those within the system. To each according to his own needs affirms a right to obtain and possess that which allows people to survive and prosper within the system. To deny this is to deny the basic premise of life. Private property can be affirmed even below excess or surplus property, the idea is affirmed even in the basic practices of possessing even the barest essentials of existence. Yet Communism denies that basic right while at the same time affirming it, maybe this is why communist systems revert to such demeaning inhuman squalor and unyielding oppression; it denies people in possessing even the barest essentials of existence while at the same time declaring they have a right to them.

Now concerning my lack of respect for views which I believe are useless and void of value, I would say it is my opinion, but it is backed up in sound theory-Again one shouldn't believe it because I believe it, one should believe it because it is true.

ATL


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

pedrolf said:


> Politics isnt my forte and if its one thing I learned from my father is to never talk about politics and religion. They are much too controversial a subject. I must apologize firsthand for posting my opinion, but I think some posters on this specific thread are way out of order for posting such strong remarks. If a person just so happens to be communist or a satanist even, we must respect their points of view and/or beliefs and convictions. I wouldnt for instance ask all you people what is it you think about president Bush, because we might get caught up in a very controversial matter. I think please, some posters should save some remarks and comments that could be categorized as out of order; and save personal opinion. Just my :2
> I hope this isnt offensive or insulting to none.
> Pedrolf


Ahhhhhhh..........I think that is me we are talking about here.

Pedrolf,
Welcome to CS and no need for your apologies for your post.
You have voiced an opinion and thank goodness unlike Cuba, you can do that here.

Frankly, although you would end up taking the thread on an unrelated route, you wouldn't insult too many if you talked about Bush. Don't know where you are from but heck, where I am at, they talk about him everyday in the news. You get use to it after a while. Heck, just turn on Comedy Central on cable and sit back. There are certainly folks on both sides of the fence but Political Correctness (correct me if I am wrong) is a term that developed as result of one of the very principles being spoken here on this thread.

In America, it is a great feeling to be able to say, Castro is "a device used by women to flush their vaginal opening", followed by the word "bag". Can't do that in Cuba right now.
Darn if I can ever spell that device.


----------



## NCRadioMan (Feb 28, 2005)

Blueface said:


> In America, it is a great feeling to be able to say, Castro is "a device used by women to flush their vaginal opening", followed by the word "bag". Can't do that in Cuba right now.


Now that is not true at all. One could do that if one wanted too. Then.....:gn :hn



:ms NCRM


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

i totally agree with the need for a mature debat as you and i have been having via PM and understand that youre not trying to lure me out and i apologise for the lateness of the reply as CS crashed on me.
However, i feel their has been some misunderstanding as regards my post.
My post was a slight divulgence from the thread topic as it was a rebuttal to ATL's comment that communism in general is against fundamental human rights. i replied again in general as to aspects of ATL's post that i found erroneous. i wasnt actually referring to cuba as i like to try and keep my debates on that to PM where [like with you] is easier to discuss without it became a huge flame war between lefties and righties.

Perhaps, i should interpret your thread to be using Cuba as perhaps an example as to why you find it hard to believe in any communism?? If this is the case, i see your point for raising it [sorry i got a little confused while writing so thought id post for both eventualities]:

As with regards to your Cuban example, i shall not argue against what you say being the truth as i can prove it neither way and i think it would be insulting to accuse you of lying. i therefore say: in every form of government sh*t happens if you pardon the rather heartless phrase. It is just that one side always sees the other sides govt as worse:

-WWII - everyone in the allies saw Hitler as the ruthless bastard he was, but then again everyone [generalisation i know] saw Churchill et al as evil scum because of their propaganda. if the war had been won by axis, by now everyone would have remembered churchill for the murders he sanctioned [there were some] and not the leader he was.

My point? Well, in every society you only tend to see the extreme view of the enemy of the state. Of course your going to hear bad things from Cuban exiles, because they are the biggest Castro haters of all-castro lovers dont leave cuba.

Now im probably going to insult many of you just by sying this, but i believe as strongly in some of my views as some of you do- i hold some socialist views. therefore i have some obvious bias. however, i try not to be a partisan in that i tread the party view wherever possible. i follow the view i believe is best for mankind's progression. that is why is say i hold SOME socialist views, others of mine are not that left wing.

Why do i believe in some socialist views- well the best example i can give is the National Health Service in the UK [sorry Bluefac ive already used the example with you but its one im fond of]. In the US there is not state funded health, in the UK there is the NHS meaning everyone is entitled to good health, rich or poor. Now this is not only fair - how can you say a nurse or a policeman who helps society daily does not deserve heart surgery when a rich tycoon does just because he is richer. this is simplified but makes my point. secondly from an economics point of view, socialist style govt intervention makes sense in some cases. with the NHS it means we will always have a basically healthy workforce who will take less time off of work and will spread less disease harming the infrastructure less, saving money.

In addition i would say communism has become associated with brutal totalitarianism [eg stalinism] but this is not true socialism/communism. communism needs to obey by Marx and socialism by a basic desire to help he oppressed people in society gain freedom from said oppression.

Communism is often given a hard deal but lets consider the situation when it emerged strongly in the 1850s in Europe. Disease, starvation, exploitation were rife as the Industrial revolution kicked off. workers were exploited by owners to squeeze a profit so much so that they literally could not live under those conditions. since then, many European countries had to adopt a system of "state socialism" to tackle the growing popularity of socialism amongst the population. consider this-you may not know it but you are currently living under a quasi-socialist order at the moment (think about it - state schools, roads and other things are NOT aspects of a capitalist economy).


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Baric,
You raise some great points and you know from our numerous PM, I respect your opinion totally although you offer a contrasting political opinion. You and I have had some great dialogue one on one and I have frankly enjoyed them all, regardless of opposing views.

By your own very words to me recently, Socialism and Communism are two different things.

Lets dissect some of the posts and get this back on track. The beginning of the end of Castro would entail potentially seeing the end of Communism in Cuba, today and for the past 47 years. Doesn't involve Communism in Nicaragua or Russia or China. Doesn't involve Socialism. Communism in Cuba has not had any of the values or benefits you have cited. It has destroyed the country and set it back in time. It has caused those dissenting people to leave by the herds, for a continuous 47 years. Think about that. Why would so many do that if things are so great. Because they don't agree with Castro? Then ask again why don't they agree and why have so many left? The beginning of the end of Castro to me is a hope the people will lose the fear of reprisal they presently have and they take to the streets and take back their country where an election has not been held for 47 years. How can anyone think those folks support Castro with no election to validate such support?

Here is a very, very brief list of "prominent" defectors.
Note his own daughter is on here. Note his sister is on here.
They have left by the millions in 47 years. Why if it so good there?

Associated Press. Posted on Mon, Nov. 15, 2004.

Some of the prominent Cuban defections to the United States

1960: Former Cuban Agriculture Minister, Raul Chibas, flees with his wife in a motorboat. Chibas was a close associate of Fidel Castro.

1965: Castro's sister Juanita leaves by plane.

1987: Former senior Cuban military officer, Brig. Gen. Rafael del Pino Diaz, defects in a small plane with his wife and three children.

1990: Former high-ranking Cuban official in Moscow, Ramon Gonzalez Vergara, took on the position to abandon from Cuba with his family in 1990.

1993: Castro's daughter Alina Fernandez Revuelta defects.

1995: Baseball pitcher Orlando Hernandez flees and becomes star pitcher with the New York Yankees, flees.

1996: Boxers Joel Casamayor and Ramon Garbey defect just before the start of the Olympics.

1996: Baseball pitcher Rolando Arrojo departs and signs with the New York Yankees.

1997: Former Cuban Olympic wrestler Alexis Vila Perdoma flees.

2002: Former Cuban ambassador to the United Nations Alcibiades Hidalgo defects. He is one of the highest-ranking officials to bolt.

2003: Cuban pop star Carlos Miguel and his mother remain in Mexico City after he performs a concert there.

2003: Dancers Cervilio Amador and Adiarys Almeida flee Cuba's national troupe, join the Cincinnati ballet.

2003: Three Cuban athletes Janerky De La Pena, Michel Brito Ferrer, and Charles Leon Tamayo defect at the World Gymnastics Championships.

2004: Forty-three members of Cuban dance troupe performing at a Las Vegas casino ask for asylum in the United States in one of the biggest mass defections of entertainers from the communist country.


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

Right, i see what youre saying: by not believing in the right to private property i am in fact saying i am in fact opposed to human rights.

Dont take this personally, but i think your argument is [very cleverly] manipulating language to try and bluff Communism into a fake corner. You deduce opinions by using the opposite of statements which is clever and fine on its own, but you appear to have very little time to hear the other side of the argument, plus you have some wrong ideas about communism.
Marx's argument is primarily about private ownership of the Means of Production. Of course if communists declared no private ownership fullstop, communists would die within three days as consuming a good [as you rightly put it] would be 'owning it', so no water etc for Communists. However, the truth is Communism declares no private ownership of the MoP and these means are things like factories, land, resources and shelter etc. It states this because when private ownership of MoP occurs, so does oppression as owners can dictate things to workers. they decide the price of their good (that the worker producers) and therefore the amount consumed by the worker and the amount of profit for him the owner. This is not fair as the owner grows richer and the worker grows poorer (forever having to buy with wages decided by the owner goods set at a price decided by the owner). you can see how that is exploited easily.
Communism stops this by letting everyone own through state ownership the MoP. people are still allowed to privately own things-they are free to spend as they like and to own as they like but just not MoP. You can see therefore how this is based on a wrong assumption:

"Yet Communism denies that basic right while at the same time affirming it, maybe this is why communist systems revert to such demeaning inhuman squalor and unyielding oppression; it denies people in possessing even the barest essentials of existence while at the same time declaring they have a right to them. "

I really do agree with you when you said *"Again one shouldn't believe it because I believe it, one should believe it because it is true."* but i believe both sides of the coin need to be examined, so i hope you understand that this is not a personal attack on your or your beliefs as i respect you a lot for being willing to have enough conviction behind those beliefs. i am merely providing more information for the debate.

Viva Debate!

I APOLOGISE, THIS IS SLIGHTLY CONFUSING-I MEANT TO SAY THIS IS A RESPONSE TO ATL'S POST #22


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Baric,
Just hit "reply with quote" from within the post you want to address and it will attach the original to your response.
Just tab your way over to the end of the original, outside the parenthesis and start typing away.
What I haven't figured out yet is how some folks attach multiple original posts, by different people to one response. That one eludes me.

OK, I am off to smoke a stogie.
Think I will do an Edmundo as that box is almost gone.
Hope it is a nice one.


----------



## bpegler (Mar 30, 2006)

Baric said:


> .
> "Viva Debate!


So, what kind of cigars do you all smoke during these debates? It must be some good s**t!


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

Blueface said:


> They have left by the millions in 47 years. Why if it so good there?


My last post was off topic but it was therebecause i felt that another topic was also being discussed [that of communism/socialism in general.]

However, with regards to Cuba.

As an exile, you strongly believe that everyone leaving does so because of political motivators i think i am right in saying?

I totally respect this especially as i know you left for those same sort of reasons. I would like to pose two questions though, in the spirit of debate, rather than trying to catch you out or anything:

-You may or may not know but the European Union has recently become a lot larger and the economic agreements between member nations mean that any citizen of a member is allowed legally to travel and work in any other member country without applying for all the visas etc etc. This i believe is similar to the US view on cuban exiles [if they get to the US they can stay, no real legal issues with deportation right? correct me if im wrong here] Well Britain as a relatively wealthy prosperous country has been witnessing a HUGE influx of immigrants from many other member countries. indeed, people are leaving countries like Poland in their hundreds of thousands each YEAR. Now in all EU countries democracy is very much live and kicking in the way you hope it will in cuba one day, yet these people still leave in far greater numbers than they are in cuba. this is because the UK is a tempting place economically as opposed to their countries. Dont you think that the economic situation in Cuba has a large part to play in the exiles leaving cuba as the US just offers a very tempting economic sanctuary?

-The exiles have on the whole tended to be the richer or more successful Cubans - dont you think some aspect of their wanting to leave is the fact that they think they can make more in the US and they are more bitter towards Castro as hes taken more than hes given to them. however for the original oppressed of cuba, could it be that they stay as hes given more than hes taken to them? Just an idea


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

Blueface said:


> Baric,
> Just hit "reply with quote" from within the post you want to address and it will attach the original to your response.
> Just tab your way over to the end of the original, outside the parenthesis and start typing away.
> What I haven't figured out yet is how some folks attach multiple original posts, by different people to one response. That one eludes me.
> ...


Thanks-i did actually do reply with quote but very stupidly deleted ATLs quote when trying to get rid of some space at the top of mine. i dont know about the multiple quoting though either! Enjoy that Edmundo, i think im gonna have to leave as its getting late this side of the pond!


----------



## pedrolf (Oct 25, 2005)

I know satanism and communism are two very different things. My point was that if a person just so happens to be a communist, or gay, or black , or a satanist , or WHATEVER.......we still must respect the beliefs and point of view. Thats all I was trying to say., I wasnt comparing communsim to satanism in any way......sorry for the confusion..
Pedrolf


----------



## pedrolf (Oct 25, 2005)

Baric, I think you and blueface are the only ones who understood what the hell I was trying to point out with my first point. Thanks for grasping the concept.


----------



## Bobb (Jun 26, 2006)

I would like to express my respect and thanks for all who have expressed their thoughts here in the last 10 posts or so. I have enjoyed reading the debate and appreciate your respect for the other sides. It is very nice to be able to read a discussion, or participate in one, where two or more people can disagree on a very contraversial issue, talk about their opinions, listen to others' opinion...no matter how different from your own, and have an intelectual conversion. Trading ideas, and not insults, is a very hard thing to do. 

Thanks for the entertaining and educational read


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Baric said:


> My last post was off topic but it was therebecause i felt that another topic was also being discussed [that of communism/socialism in general.]
> 
> However, with regards to Cuba.
> 
> ...


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Amazing what a nice cigar and a good drink can do for you.
I actually ended up smoking a Monarca and put the Edmundo aside.
I can't believe I am about to actually have something positive come out of my mouth and through my keyboard about life in Cuba with Castro but an honest person I am so here goes my best attempt.......

He eliminated any chance of any obesity in Cuba as no food=no obesity.


----------



## icehog3 (Feb 20, 2005)

Blueface said:


> I can't believe I am about to actually have something positive come out of my mouth and through my keyboard about life in Cuba with Castro but an honest person I am so here goes my best attempt.......
> 
> He eliminated any chance of any obesity in Cuba as no food=no obesity.


Every dark cloud has a silver lining.


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

Baric said:


> Right, i see what youre saying: by not believing in the right to private property i am in fact saying i am in fact opposed to human rights.
> 
> Dont take this personally, but i think your argument is [very cleverly] manipulating language to try and bluff Communism into a fake corner. You deduce opinions by using the opposite of statements which is clever and fine on its own, but you appear to have very little time to hear the other side of the argument, plus you have some wrong ideas about communism.
> Marx's argument is primarily about private ownership of the Means of Production. Of course if communists declared no private ownership fullstop, communists would die within three days as consuming a good [as you rightly put it] would be 'owning it', so no water etc for Communists. However, the truth is Communism declares no private ownership of the MoP and these means are things like factories, land, resources and shelter etc. It states this because when private ownership of MoP occurs, so does oppression as owners can dictate things to workers. they decide the price of their good (that the worker producers) and therefore the amount consumed by the worker and the amount of profit for him the owner. This is not fair as the owner grows richer and the worker grows poorer (forever having to buy with wages decided by the owner goods set at a price decided by the owner). you can see how that is exploited easily.
> ...


That's fine, 
Private property is at the heart of human rights. It's not the consumption which I said provides ownership of a good, but the purchasing of that good or the reception of that good through some legitimate means. While that good is within their possession; it is their good to do with as they see fit. Even in the most barbaric oppressive communist regimes, this practice is maintained. People do own property and are allowed so because it is needed for their survival. That makes it an inherent human right period. They have a right to own property based upon that basic notion, to deny this is to deny even the most barest and basic existence in the world. That is my central premise, that is why I said that Private Property is at the heart of existence because without ownership of those things which we consume...........we would not live!

Now onto factory owners. Do workers put up money (risk capital) to build factories? If that factory fails are they liable for its debts? Workers are provided with employment at an agreed upon wage. Wages are negotiated and renegotiated, this is at the heart of capitalism! Capitalism believes in the market, and the maket insists upon bargaining. Labor is a commodity which is negotitiated for its value. Now certain labors are more valuable than others but why should those who know the very least about those labors and their worth (governments) decide the value of those labors? This is why I believe Marxism ultimately fails; it puts in the hands those who know nothing of those things (such as when Castro put Che Guevara in charge of the Ministry of Industry and Economics). The ultimate result is failure, out of that failure comes rationing and from that comes poverty. Economies either grow or they die, they do not remain static.

Are commodities resources to be distributed by the government? How about skills? Should that be distributed by the government? Do the skills and abilities which we all have, do they belong to us or to the government? These are resources and communist governments do have control over them. Does this mean that the people themselves are property of the government since the government must distribute these resources? Communist countries wrestled with this issue because they were charged in maintaining the workers and providing them with their needs, but to to do that they had to deny the right to choose what they did with their own abilities. This is why so many defect; the idea of someone telling what you can and cannot with your life is oppressive. Ultimately it is a denial of all rights because it is a denial of freedom of choice which people have from birth and the abilities which they develop are assumed to belong to the government because they are resource. This only leads to one end result............slavery!

Sincerely,

ATL


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

ATLHARP said:


> That's fine,
> Private property is at the heart of human rights. It's not the consumption which I said provides ownership of a good, but the purchasing of that good or the reception of that good through some legitimate means. While that good is within their possession; it is their good to do with as they see fit. Even in the most barbaric oppressive communist regimes, this practice is maintained. People do own property and are allowed so because it is needed for their survival. That makes it an inherent human right period.
> Hope this colour is readable....Again, i think that this is misunderstood about Communism. The main "property" people are not alowed allowed to own are the Means of Production, not general property like clothes etc. Of course people need to won this. However, the communist idea is to provide the clothes/food for people without them necessarily needing to purchase it (if the purchasing is what you define as enabling ownership then yes in an ideal FINAL communist state there may not be ownership. however, people would still have food clothes etc.) As regards inherent human rights i agree with you-they are based on what man cannot survive without. This is i think these are the defined ones: shelter, food, drink [not sure if ive forgotten any.] People will NOT die if they do not own a house, a field or a factory. They will die without the derivatives of these things but they wont die if they dont own tese. Therefore IMHO they cannot be classed as inherent BASIC needs as they are not the basics, they are the start rather than the end of the chain. ergo, so long as the final link in the chain [food, water, shelter] is provided, it does not matter who owns the first link [the field, the spring, the house].
> 
> ...


To sum up everything i have said, i believe socialism works when used in conjunction with the best ideas from other idelogies, to an extent this is evident in the UK-socialist ideas and capitlist ones. Socialism when working allows efficient allocation of resource sby freeing man up to decide what he needs rather than his pocket deciding.
The problem comes with the word 'working', many socailts attempts have not worked. however many also have-every idea in history that speaks out against the existing order is met with opposition:

-The aristocracy were crushed at first by the King [here in England is a good example] when they first demanded rights.
-Capitalism was crushed by the aristocracy it was there to replace
-Capitlism has tried to crush socialism

This is Marx's dialectic at work-the coming together of thesis and antithesis to prodcue synthesis. This is why i believe that a mixing of the best ideas of socialism and capitalism would be best to benfit mankind as both socialism and capitalism have their defects and their advantages-why nottake the best of both and forget the worst of both?

Edit: Sorry for the ghastly green font


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

Blueface said:


> Of course it has to. If you lack basic daily needs such as food and electricity and couple that with a oppressive society, where no opportunities exist, inherrently you will seek a better life.


I know weve already discussed this via PM, but im going to repost it as i believe it has a valid place in the debate.

I would blame a large proportion of Cuba's economic ill son the US embargo. I dont think that all the blame can be heaped on Castro when it is the embargo that causes the ills. I say this because i have read figures that say that anywhere up to 90% of Cuba's foreign income came from the US before 1959 and that the fact that her nearest trade partner is not trading with her just logically points to large repurcussions for a country like cuba that specialises in cash crops like sugar and cigars. ths imho cannot be blamed on castro either as cash crops were always planted in cuba and efforts have been made to diversify.

I would give the following analogy as to why i believe it is not logical to blame castro for the embargo and therefore for Cuba's economic issues:

If i was walking down the street and decided to punch a man in the face. i then said to him "oh i have nothing against you, its just your wife's face is ugly", blaming castro for the embargo is as logical as that man turning to his wife and saying "its all your fault i got punched". Its not her fault, she didnt do anything, its my fault because im a maniac who likes to punch people. sorry about the quality of the analogy, it was the best i could think of!


----------



## M1903A1 (Jun 7, 2006)

Baric said:


> I know weve already discussed this via PM, but im going to repost it as i believe it has a valid place in the debate.
> 
> I would blame a large proportion of Cuba's economic ill son the US embargo. I dont think that all the blame can be heaped on Castro when it is the embargo that causes the ills. I say this because i have read figures that say that anywhere up to 90% of Cuba's foreign income came from the US before 1959 and that the fact that her nearest trade partner is not trading with her just logically points to large repurcussions for a country like cuba that specialises in cash crops like sugar and cigars. ths imho cannot be blamed on castro either as cash crops were always planted in cuba and efforts have been made to diversify.


I don't agree...sans the USA, Cuba can trade with the rest of the world and they obviously do. And they've had 45 years to realign their trade policies and develop new primary trade partners. In those same 45 years, much of the knowledge base of their Means of Production has fled the country, a decent part of their industrial base has worn down, and (let's not forget this) a good part of what money they _did_ earn was spent on weapons and exporting revolution to such distant places as Chile (Salvador Allende ultimately killed himself with an AK47 presented to him by Castro), Mozambique, Angola, Grenada, Nicaragua and, more recently, Venezuela. Even if you're a nation of plenty as Cuba is, if you mismanage your means of production, then take what you _do_ earn and spend it on non-productive ventures, you're going to end up in the poorhouse.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Baric said:


> I know weve already discussed this via PM, but im going to repost it as i believe it has a valid place in the debate.
> 
> I would blame a large proportion of Cuba's economic ill son the US embargo. I dont think that all the blame can be heaped on Castro when it is the embargo that causes the ills. I say this because i have read figures that say that anywhere up to 90% of Cuba's foreign income came from the US before 1959 and that the fact that her nearest trade partner is not trading with her just logically points to large repurcussions for a country like cuba that specialises in cash crops like sugar and cigars. ths imho cannot be blamed on castro either as cash crops were always planted in cuba and efforts have been made to diversify.
> 
> ...


As I mentioned to you via PM, the embargo has not been successful.
Can't be called successful from a US perspective if after so many years, Castro is still there. I think we can all agree on that.
It should therefore be abolished in my opinion so no one can ever view it as a source of why Cuba is the way it is.
Now, doesn't Cuba trade with Spain? China? Canada? Argentina? Mexico? Germany? and on and on?
Lastly, can we list the reasons why the embargo went in place? What offensive actions towarsd the US took place that led to the embargo?
Bet you dollars to donuts that if a true election was held and the people truly elected Castro as their leader, the US would have no choice but to feel pressured to recognize him. Castro has never held an election in 47 years.
How can anyone know what the people really want?


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

Thanks again for your response,

"Hope this colour is readable....Again, i think that this is misunderstood about Communism. The main "property" people are not alowed allowed to own are the Means of Production, not general property like clothes etc. Of course people need to won this. However, the communist idea is to provide the clothes/food for people without them necessarily needing to purchase it (if the purchasing is what you define as enabling ownership then yes in an ideal FINAL communist state there may not be ownership. however, people would still have food clothes etc.) As regards inherent human rights i agree with you-they are based on what man cannot survive without. This is i think these are the defined ones: shelter, food, drink [not sure if ive forgotten any.] People will NOT die if they do not own a house, a field or a factory. They will die without the derivatives of these things but they wont die if they dont own tese. Therefore IMHO they cannot be classed as inherent BASIC needs as they are not the basics, they are the start rather than the end of the chain. ergo, so long as the final link in the chain [food, water, shelter] is provided, it does not matter who owns the first link [the field, the spring, the house]."

Who says they are not allowed to own the means of production? As I said the day the worker puts up the risk capital and shares in the liability with the factory owner is the day he has a say in the Means of Production. Again what is the worker risking if the factory fails? His job is terminated and he finds another one. The factory owner has far more at risk in losing his credit his livelihood and also the capital he risked as well as potential debts to be incurred at the time of the loss. I would say the worker is getting a serious bargain out of this deal regardless. Labor has ALWAYS been negotiated as long as leverage has existed that allowed it to come to the bargaining table. This was true in sea shipping long before foctory work was even thought up, sailors would bargain with captains as to their wage on the ship. Indeed sailors themselves incurred just as much risk as the captain considering the perilous nature of their work.

"We do not consume, at least in the economics sense, the Means of Production. We use them to produce goods. the goods are then consumed so the basic human rights apply to the goods, not the MoP, therefore meaning that your right to won as a human right only applies to the goods rather than the MoP [as the goods are the only consumed units that ensure survival]."

Yet Communist nations do not just regulate the means of production, they regulate the distribution of those goods too. "Each according to his own needs" deals with distribution. As I said the denial of possessing property is the key factor- the distribution, not the means of production is how this violated directly. Again the right applies to the possession of anything lawful- I just said it started at the point of things which we need to have for a basic existence and moves on from there. People have a right to own property beyond what they need- that is how people prosper. I would go so far as to say that prosperity is also a key component of the right to own property as well.

"This is very true-workers do not. but ten i would pose two questions:
-The owners risk but then agan, after that initial investment, the workers do ALL the work. They produce the goods and do the owners help? I would say [simply speaking] no. Therefore, the owners entire claim to the ownership to the good is that they owned its constituent parts [a valid claim], but i only see them as owning half. Without the workers they would only own some sheet metal and a few bolts [using a car as an example] but without the owners the workers would only havea their potential productive labour. both sides need eachother, so should be equal, but capitalism gives unfair power to employers cnsidering the 'mutual equality' nature of their relationship.
-One huge failing of capitalism is that it is nearly impossible to if you are a worker to become an owner because you never have he cash to invest. however owners always have spare cash and can become richer and richer. not very fair and what is know as the poverty trap.
I personally believe people should not exploit their natural talents to gain power over others, instead they should use it to benefit society. As a very basic example, if in school i understand a theory and another student doesnt, i dont exploit that advantage i have and humiliate them or charge them to tutor them, i teach them so they understand. this helps our school 'society' as the schools average grades go up, the school gets more funding and can buy nicer things, that i then benefit from. if id have charged for tutoring, the student would have been unwilling to pay and no benefit for everyone."

Again this is wrong in that you assume that the owners do not do any of the work. Again the owner pays the bills for the factory, provides the factory for the employment of it's people, as well as handling much of the business end of the factory. Just because the owner of factory isn't pushing a broom around does not mean he isn't working. Again much of what you are saying is hyperbole: Factory owners do not just get richer and fatten up their coffers (even if they did there is nothing wrong with that), most of the time they take the money they earn and put it back into the company which in turn hires more workers and provides more jobs. This is how business is done, through investment- not by taking cash and just buying yachts, but reinvesting it into the company to make it more successful. The mutual equality of the owner and worker ends at their rights. The worker does not have an inherent right to own the means of production as long as he/she is pulling a wage that is agreed upon ahead of time. Now when the worker is reinvesting his capital into the company to update the equipment, maybe then he has a say in the means of production. If I don't buy the pizza, I have no right to a slice of it especially if I am being paid to make it for someone else. The workers compensation ends at his wage and or benefits which has been agreed upon in the job. To insist that he/she own part of the means of production just because he/she shows up and works is unjust.

If someone does tutor a fellow student and is paid for it, why is that wrong? You have a service that is needed and is valuable enough to be paid for. Now if you believe it to be a greater benefit to not charge because the student does not have the means to pay, that's fine. Your abilities are yours to do with. Now I would say if the school would cut back on useless things like cricket or soccer, and provide some additional money for students like you that have the ability to tutor, wouldn't that be better for the overall school society?

"I would disagree with this. the only reason labour can be bargained with nowadays is thanks to socialism. trade unions existed to bargain for labour and were socialist creations. without these, as the situation was circa 1850-1900 period in uk, no workers could bargain because of the nature of the market. there were so few jobs for so many ppl that workers were forced to take the owners rates. this was in no way negotiating because negotiating implies a mutual agreement so both sides get benefit, in the above situation only the owners benefitted as the workers got a wage they couldnot live on, but they had to take it or else they would have nothing."

The reason why labor unions could come to the bargaining table was because they used labor itself as a leverage tool to bargain. Under Communism, this is not allowed. Communist countries do not allow walk outs and demonstrations against their governments because they are deemed as being counter-revolutionary. Funny how under Communist regimes the tool which is used by workers the most to provide themselves a better livelihood cannot be used for fear of repression. Maybe it's because the government owns the means of production and the workers (Which are property of the government) under that system have no chance in hell of actually having any say in how they are maintained or used.

"Often the govt does know the best route as it can see the full picture. it can see where labour is needed and where it is not. in actual fact, the true market is inefficient for society as it does not invest in what is known as, econimcally, merit goods. These are goods that are socially desirable and not economically viable and include things like schools, where left to their own devices in a true free market, consumers would not pay to go to school as they cannot see the full benefit of schooling [society gets educated ppl who can invent things to be sold etc etc] The fact that free schooling is available shows the success of socilistic ideas in modern ociety, even a capitalist society like the US has had to take in some socialist ideas.
I would also say some socialists are very good at handling the economy (see Gordon Brown, the UK's chancellor of the exchequer, he has socialist views and is the greatest CotE for centuries in temrs of stability and prosperity and this is factually correct."

Actually governments know NOTHING of what it means to run a business and usually have no clue whatsoever in what takes to make one successful. If you don't believe me look at your local bureacracy and see it in action. Also to assume that people do not see the benefit of schooling is absurd; private schools have been in existence for centuries long before public schools and they maintained themselves as a business because people saw those schools as valuable places for people's education. The government didn't need to tell them that; they knew it out of their own experiences. I can't speak for Britain , but in the US it is widely believed outside of government influence that if you don't go to school you will end up a loser living on welfare. Your exchequer has nothing to do with prosperity outside of staying out of the way of the good citizens of your country who seek to prosper despite your crippling tax rates. Your country's prosperity is no more the work of your exchequer anymore than your educational success is the product of your education minister.

"This is very true and imo one ofthe greatest issues facing a communist government. On the one hand, human rights regardng freedom and the other social efficiency and i believe a balance can be struck. i believe that man develops to be best at what he enjoys if allowed to develop and this is where i think soialism helps. if someone enjoys soccer, under capitalism he may well just have to become an insurance broker and only play soccer at weekends. under socialism by allowing man to live without being dictated to by owners, that man could play soccer all the time, develop his skills and become a master. he would then provide enjoyment to others who like watching soccer and then has paid society back."

What is social efficiency? And who decides it? The nature of law is to limit freedom, laws and government exist to be boundaries within society. If a man is allowed to be the best that he can be it is because the government is not involved in his life. If someone wishes to play Soccer why not work part time and lower tax rates on his wages so he doesn't have to work as much and can spend more time playing soccer. Why should others in a system pay for someone to develop soccer skills?

I got an even better idea why doesn't soccer boy develop the needed skills so that he can get a job that pays him a much better wage that allows him more time to play soccer and doesn't make him a burden on other people? In doing this I have eliminated the government interference and the burden on other people which have to fund his nonsense. Sorry I think you can come up with a better example....

Thanks again,

Andrew


----------



## air1070 (Jun 24, 2006)

recent article:

HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba's most popular musicians wished ailing leader Fidel Castro a quick recovery on Saturday amid speculation that his top ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, was planning a visit and a report from Brazil that the Cuban president had a stomach tumor.

There was no sign of Castro, who relinquished power five days ago to his brother Raul after intestinal surgery, and his designated successor has also remained out of the public view.

"It is a delicate moment ... I trust in our Armed Forces and our people," said Juan Formell, leader of Cuba's most popular salsa band, Los Van Van, in a "get well" note published by the ruling Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

Other messages of support for Castro and his government came from singers Pablo Milanes and Silvio Rodriguez.

The Association of Combatants of the Revolution, which groups veterans from Castro's guerrilla struggle in the Sierra Maestra mountains to wars in Angola and Ethiopia, asked him to look after his health so he could continue to lead Cuba.

Two Cabinet ministers said on Friday that the 79-year-old revolutionary was recovering.

But Brazil's Folha de S. Paulo newspaper said the Brazilian government had been told that Fidel Castro had a malignant stomach tumor. The paper did not identify its sources.

"It looks like we will lose our friend," Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was quoted as telling an aide.

In Caracas, a government source said Chavez canceled a trip to Bolivia amid reports he might fly to Cuba to see Castro, which could indicate the Cuban leader was lucid and in a condition to receive visitors.

The populist Venezuelan leader has helped keep Cuba's government afloat since the collapse of its former benefactor the Soviet Union through cheap oil and billion-dollar payments for Cuban doctors to work in Venezuelan slums.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a message beamed to Cuba on Friday night, told the island's residents that "much is changing there" and now was the time to push for democracy.

"We will stand with you to secure your rights -- to speak as you choose, to think as you please, to worship as you wish, and to choose your leaders, freely and fairly, in democratic elections," she said in a broadcast on the U.S.-funded Radio Marti network.

But Cuba's Minister of Culture, Abel Prieto, told reporters at a Havana event that Rice's message, which followed a similar statement by President George W. Bush on Thursday, would fall on deaf ears.

"Nobody in Cuba is going to listen to a message that comes from a functionary of a foreign government. That has no value for Cubans," he said in some of the first government comments since Castro's surgery.

'RHETORIC FOR MIAMI'

"I think all these messages are pure rhetoric for Miami," he said.

Prieto also said the Cuban government was functioning well with Fidel Castro recovering and his 75-year-old brother at the helm, despite suggestions from the United States that things were in flux. Castro has led Cuba for 47 years, since he swept to power in a 1959 revolution.

Cuba's minister of health, Jose Ramon Balaguer, told reporters during a visit to Guatemala that Castro would be back soon.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, during a trip to the Dominican Republic on Friday, also cited "indications" Castro was recovering and wished the Cuban president well.

None of this was good news for the Miami Cuban exile community, which danced in the streets on Monday when Castro's surgery and hand-over of power was announced.

Alfredo Mesa, executive director of the Cuban American National Foundation, said the exiles, of whom there are 650,000 in the Miami area, were beginning to lose their early hope that Castro was dead and change was at hand for their homeland.

"Right now, it's more 'let's be judicious in our response and see,' because there's nothing to celebrate about a succession of power to Raul Castro," he told Reuters.

http://za.today.reuters.com/news/ne...1_BAN530202_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-CUBA-20060805.XML


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

ATLHARP said:


> Thanks again for your response,
> 
> Who says they are not allowed to own the means of production?
> 
> ...




Cheers Andrew-you raise some very intersting points. i think the main issue here is that im defending theoretical socialism. (i say socialism as communism is primarily to do with Marx and im no way near enough of a Marx scholar to tackle that). In practice nowhere has made pure socialism yet but people have dne part socialism.

Thanks for the reply,

David


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

Blueface said:


> As I mentioned to you via PM, the embargo has not been successful.
> Can't be called successful from a US perspective if after so many years, Castro is still there. I think we can all agree on that.
> It should therefore be abolished in my opinion so no one can ever view it as a source of why Cuba is the way it is.
> Now, doesn't Cuba trade with Spain? China? Canada? Argentina? Mexico? Germany? and on and on?
> ...


I thought that Castro held elections with candidates from the Communist Party (but even this isnt true democracy i accept)? i obviously dont know enough about the issue!
I also agree the embargo is a complete failure and should be scrapped-its punishing far too many people.
As i said via PM, Cuba's trade with those countries is only starting to become significant as China develops and the EU develops into big enough trade partners to equal what she lost in the US and subsequently the USSR. Therefore i think the embargo still had a huge impact in that interrim stage where the USSR collapsed and before the others took off.


----------



## drevim (Dec 21, 2005)

Not chiming in to create any debate, just thought I'd pass along that according to Yahoo, the powers that be in Cuba say Fidel is sitting up and getting better. Maybe PR, guess we'll see.

On a side note, and maybe Carlos (Blueface) can answer this, how can there be a McDonald's in Cuba? It's a US owned business, or can they get around this due to being and international monster?

When we were sitting in a McD's on Disney property last month, they had a poster showing all the countries they are in, and damned if they aren't in Havana. Just found this a bit confusing.


----------



## dayplanner (Dec 11, 1997)

drevim said:


> On a side note, and maybe Carlos (Blueface) can answer this, how can there be a McDonald's in Cuba? It's a US owned business, or can they get around this due to being and international monster?


 It's probably located on the Guantánamo Bay naval base.


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

:tpd: i didnt see one whilst i was in Havana...so im with whiteboard on this one


----------



## PadronMe (Apr 26, 2005)

icehog3 said:


> Every dark cloud has a silver lining.


Yea, but Every Siver Lining has a ........Touch of Grey.


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Lets add a little related humor to this thread as to what it means "the beginning of the end of Castro to some:

Fidel goes to an elementary school to talk with the kids and do a little PR.

After his talk he offers question/answer time. One little boy puts up his hand and Fidel asks his name. "Jose", responds the little boy.
"And what is your question, Jose?"

"I have 3 questions:

First, why are there no elections in Cuba?

Second, why don't we have enough food?

And third, why can't we stay in the same hotels the tourists do?

Just then, the bell rings for recess. Fidel informs the kids they will continue after recess. When they resume, Fidel says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right: question time.
Does anyone have a question?"

A boy puts up his hand and Fidel aks him his name. "Juan" responds the little boy.
"And what is your question, Juan?", asks Fidel.

"I have 5 questions:

First, why are there no elections in Cuba?

Second, why don't we have enough food?

Third, why can't we stay in the same hotels the tourists do?

Fourth, why did the recess bell ring 20 minutes early?

And Fifth, what the heck happened to Jose?"


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2006)

The funny thing is, this joke existed (in a similar version) in east-germany before the berlin-wall was taken down.


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

Blueface said:


> Lets add a little related humor to this thread as to what it means "the beginning of the end of Castro to some:
> 
> Fidel goes to an elementary school to talk with the kids and do a little PR.
> 
> ...


Man that is too funny!! :r

ATL


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

Blueface said:


> Lets add a little related humor to this thread as to what it means "the beginning of the end of Castro to some:
> 
> Fidel goes to an elementary school to talk with the kids and do a little PR.
> 
> ...


:r :r thats a classic like Humungus said.


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

M1903A1 said:


> I don't agree...sans the USA, Cuba can trade with the rest of the world and they obviously do. And they've had 45 years to realign their trade policies and develop new primary trade partners. In those same 45 years, much of the knowledge base of their Means of Production has fled the country, a decent part of their industrial base has worn down, and (let's not forget this) a good part of what money they _did_ earn was spent on weapons and exporting revolution to such distant places as Chile (Salvador Allende ultimately killed himself with an AK47 presented to him by Castro), Mozambique, Angola, Grenada, Nicaragua and, more recently, Venezuela. Even if you're a nation of plenty as Cuba is, if you mismanage your means of production, then take what you _do_ earn and spend it on non-productive ventures, you're going to end up in the poorhouse.


Interesting view...

Cuba has and has only been able to trade with the rest of the world for the past decade or so. before then she was trapped in a deal with the soviet union so could NOT deal with the rest of the world. when the USSR collapsed it took cub a while to get back on its feet as it would any country so the real trade has only been happening for a few years-not nearly enough time to mae a real change YET. A good deal of the money is i guess a relative statement, im not saying they didnt fund but the extent and the significance of such is purely subjective. However, on ething is important to note-Cuba is NOT a 'nation of plenty' - far from. she has very little natural resources so needs to import lots, her natural products are cash crops - cigars and sugar- and the price of sugar has crashed recently providing even less revenue. many of cuba's economic ills are not due to herself but international occurences.


----------



## GOAT LOCKER (Aug 7, 2004)

A somewhat cryptic story out of Havana. Doesn't look good for Castro...

*Peaceful succession under way in Cuba: official *

HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba has set in motion a peaceful political succession, dashing U.S. government expectations of chaos following Fidel Castro's hand-over of power to his brother, a leading Cuban intellectual and government member, Roberto Fernandez Retamar, said on Monday.

"They (the U.S. government) had not expected that a peaceful succession was possible. A peaceful succession has taken place in Cuba," Fernandez Retamar said at a news conference.

The writer and member of the Council of State was the first government official to say a succession under Raul Castro was in motion after Fidel Castro relinquished power a week ago following gastric surgery.

Link to story


----------



## Baric (Jun 14, 2006)

Nice find GOAT LOCKER, very interesting.

Edit: After reading GOAT's post, i did some research-this page has lots to offer on the subject, again thanks to GOAT for bringing it to attention:

http://news.google.co.uk/news?q=Cuba+succession&hl=en&lr=&sa=X&oi=news&ct=title


----------



## ATLHARP (May 3, 2005)

GOAT LOCKER said:


> A somewhat cryptic story out of Havana. Doesn't look good for Castro...
> 
> *Peaceful succession under way in Cuba: official *
> 
> ...


Amazing, this without all that pesky democracy getting in the way!

ATL


----------



## GOAT LOCKER (Aug 7, 2004)

ATLHARP said:


> Amazing, this without all that pesky democracy getting in the way!
> 
> ATL


Or any of that pesky freedom.

I'm sure the Cuban people would be thrilled with the status quo. 

And if people believe that there is a smooth transfer of power going on, I've got a bridge to sell them. If Fidel is dead, his death/succession will not be officially anounced until Raul has consolidated power, if he can pull it off.


----------



## Nely (Nov 11, 2004)

Viva Fidel y Raul!


----------



## Blueface (May 28, 2005)

Nely said:


> Viva Fidel y Raul!


Nelson,
After the past three days, I needed that.:r 
Thanks for the chuckle.


----------



## GOAT LOCKER (Aug 7, 2004)

Nely said:


> Viva Fidel y Raul!


Is that a new Marca? According to rumor, Raul = Julietta, nttawwt... So maybe it's Raul who is pushing for the bigger vitolas? :r


----------

